Aircraft carriers are as useless as battleships in an all out war with China or Russia

[Meathead]

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)

Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.

taskandpurpose.com

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

Incorrect. This is not the 1940s where an AC has to be mere miles from a target. It is the only way to project power in areas where no land-based aircraft are possible, and carriers do not stand alone. Instead they are escorted by ships and in fact their own aircraft which are specialized at intercepting threats. Additionally, the act of assaulting an AC is an act of war, a tripwire in effect, which no country has the balls to do, perhaps not even in a Biden presidency.

Aircraft carriers, like submarines are purely offensive. It is the primary reason they are the most powerful weapon in the world besides nuclear, biological or chemical all of which carriers could theoretically deliver.

All those ships would be sunk in an hour after launching an attack

But the attack would be launched, right?

As I said, they are offensive weapons.

You'll get it soon, maybe.

Exactly if a carrier is used on a hypersonic missile equipped nation the carrier will be sunk. That said the carrier has no value in this situation

No, certainly not if the AC was alerted to attack, which it would invariable be. The carrier could launch nuclear-armed piloted aircraft from a point far closer than any ICBM and at equidistant from any incoming missile. If you understand anything, there is still a reason that trained individuals can react far better than a missile or drone.

Regardless, I am tiring of this.

Attack aircraft do not shoot down hypersonic missiles. 1.7 miles per second

It is, or was, called MAD my friend. Google it. Besides, attack aircraft are not designed or intended for that. That is why they are termed "attack". The AC itself is not a defensive weapon, but once again, and I tire of repeating it, it is both a tactical and strategic weapom.

 

[Dayton3]

Just to add some oil in the flame.

China’s ‘aircraft-carrier killer’ missiles hit target ship, insider reveals

DF-26B and DF-21D missiles launched in August struck moving vessel close to Paracel Islands, former senior colonel Wang Xiangsui says.

www.scmp.com

Dayton will say that those missiles will bounce off a carrier or that no plane can get within 500 miles of a carrier, even though no plane or jet needs be involved.

I wouldn't say anything like that. I guess lying is your new trolling technique.

Yea you did, I guess memory is not one of your strong points

If you post a link to where I did so then I'll happily concede the point and retract pointing out that you lied.

Perhaps it was someone else you're thinking of.

 

[Camp]

The real debate is whether Three Gorges Dam can be taken out by conventionally armed warheads.

 

[esalla]

Just to add some oil in the flame.

China’s ‘aircraft-carrier killer’ missiles hit target ship, insider reveals

DF-26B and DF-21D missiles launched in August struck moving vessel close to Paracel Islands, former senior colonel Wang Xiangsui says.

www.scmp.com

Dayton will say that those missiles will bounce off a carrier or that no plane can get within 500 miles of a carrier, even though no plane or jet needs be involved.

I wouldn't say anything like that. I guess lying is your new trolling technique.

Yea you did, I guess memory is not one of your strong points

If you post a link to where I did so then I'll happily concede the point and retract pointing out that you lied.

Perhaps it was someone else you're thinking of.

You do not recall saying that anything not nuclear would bounce off of a carrier?

Your lack of memory is not my issue, get tested

 

[esalla]

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)

Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.

taskandpurpose.com

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

Incorrect. This is not the 1940s where an AC has to be mere miles from a target. It is the only way to project power in areas where no land-based aircraft are possible, and carriers do not stand alone. Instead they are escorted by ships and in fact their own aircraft which are specialized at intercepting threats. Additionally, the act of assaulting an AC is an act of war, a tripwire in effect, which no country has the balls to do, perhaps not even in a Biden presidency.

Aircraft carriers, like submarines are purely offensive. It is the primary reason they are the most powerful weapon in the world besides nuclear, biological or chemical all of which carriers could theoretically deliver.

All those ships would be sunk in an hour after launching an attack

But the attack would be launched, right?

As I said, they are offensive weapons.

You'll get it soon, maybe.

Exactly if a carrier is used on a hypersonic missile equipped nation the carrier will be sunk. That said the carrier has no value in this situation

No, certainly not if the AC was alerted to attack, which it would invariable be. The carrier could launch nuclear-armed piloted aircraft from a point far closer than any ICBM and at equidistant from any incoming missile. If you understand anything, there is still a reason that trained individuals can react far better than a missile or drone.

Regardless, I am tiring of this.

Attack aircraft do not shoot down hypersonic missiles. 1.7 miles per second

It is, or was, called MAD my friend. Google it. Besides, attack aircraft are not designed or intended for that. That is why they are termed "attack". The AC itself is not a defensive weapon, but once again, and I tire of repeating it, it is both a tactical and strategic weapom.

Carriers are both offensive and defensive

 

[Dayton3]

The real debate is whether Three Gorges Dam can be taken out by conventionally armed warheads.

I've developed a scenario for that in some war fiction I've been writing. It does require some custom made warheads. I developed the scenario by studying the Vajont Dam disaster in northern Italy. Though the Vajont wasn't actually breached (or even damaged much) it stoked my interest in the behavior of substantial bodies of water when subjected to sudden stresses.

Vajont Dam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dayton3]

Just to add some oil in the flame.

China’s ‘aircraft-carrier killer’ missiles hit target ship, insider reveals

DF-26B and DF-21D missiles launched in August struck moving vessel close to Paracel Islands, former senior colonel Wang Xiangsui says.

www.scmp.com

Dayton will say that those missiles will bounce off a carrier or that no plane can get within 500 miles of a carrier, even though no plane or jet needs be involved.

I wouldn't say anything like that. I guess lying is your new trolling technique.

Yea you did, I guess memory is not one of your strong points

If you post a link to where I did so then I'll happily concede the point and retract pointing out that you lied.

Perhaps it was someone else you're thinking of.

You do not recall saying that anything not nuclear would bounce off of a carrier?

Your lack of memory is not my issue, get tested

Don't be an idiot. IIRC, I said specifically that incidents with heavy weapons detonating aboard carriers in the past showed that supercarriers could survive up to six anti ship missiles striking them. As evidence I cited the detonations of nine bombs on the flight deck of Enterprise during the Vietnam War as well as the infamous fire on the Forrestal during that same era. Not to mention incidents where aircraft have crashed into supercarriers triggering fires and explosions.

I've not once posted anything about ordnance "bouncing off of a carrier".

You're lucky you can still even post on this board with such blatant trolling.

 

[esalla]

Just to add some oil in the flame.

China’s ‘aircraft-carrier killer’ missiles hit target ship, insider reveals

DF-26B and DF-21D missiles launched in August struck moving vessel close to Paracel Islands, former senior colonel Wang Xiangsui says.

www.scmp.com

Dayton will say that those missiles will bounce off a carrier or that no plane can get within 500 miles of a carrier, even though no plane or jet needs be involved.

I wouldn't say anything like that. I guess lying is your new trolling technique.

Yea you did, I guess memory is not one of your strong points

If you post a link to where I did so then I'll happily concede the point and retract pointing out that you lied.

Perhaps it was someone else you're thinking of.

You do not recall saying that anything not nuclear would bounce off of a carrier?

Your lack of memory is not my issue, get tested

Don't be an idiot. IIRC, I said specifically that incidents with heavy weapons detonating aboard carriers in the past showed that supercarriers could survive up to six anti ship missiles striking them. As evidence I cited the detonations of nine bombs on the flight deck of Enterprise during the Vietnam War as well as the infamous fire on the Forrestal during that same era. Not to mention incidents where aircraft have crashed into supercarriers triggering fires and explosions.

I've not once posted anything about ordnance "bouncing off of a carrier".

You're lucky you can still even post on this board with such blatant trolling.

You are a very forgetful child

F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

It's been done before. Remember the 1981 NATO exercise where a massive fleet traveled all the way from the U.S. to cross the GIUK gap and conducted constant flight operations coordinating 83 ships from four different nations under EMCON conditions. 1981 was 40 years ago. Why do you keep...

www.usmessageboard.com

esalla said:
And just 1 DF-21 is all it takes.

Daydreaming3 said
Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead, one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.

 

[esalla]

The real debate is whether Three Gorges Dam can be taken out by conventionally armed warheads.

I've developed a scenario for that in some war fiction I've been writing. It does require some custom made warheads. I developed the scenario by studying the Vajont Dam disaster in northern Italy. Though the Vajont wasn't actually breached (or even damaged much) it stoked my interest in the behavior of substantial bodies of water when subjected to sudden stresses.

Vajont Dam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

LOL now the truth comes out, Mr. science fiction wannaby writer

 

[Dayton3]

I never said it would "bounce off". I assume it would kill a hundred or so aboard the carrier and do several million dollars of damage.

But that doesn't mean that single missile strike would come close to putting the carrier out of action.

 

[Dayton3]

The real debate is whether Three Gorges Dam can be taken out by conventionally armed warheads.

I've developed a scenario for that in some war fiction I've been writing. It does require some custom made warheads. I developed the scenario by studying the Vajont Dam disaster in northern Italy. Though the Vajont wasn't actually breached (or even damaged much) it stoked my interest in the behavior of substantial bodies of water when subjected to sudden stresses.

Vajont Dam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

LOL now the truth comes out, Mr. science fiction wannaby writer

If you or anyone else is interested I can link to that portion of my story when I post it at another board. Please keep in mind that the story is fiction. Not history. And please also keep in mind I'm not a very good writer anyway.

 

[esalla]

I never said it would "bounce off". I assume it would kill a hundred or so aboard the carrier and do several million dollars of damage.

But that doesn't mean that single missile strike would come close to putting the carrier out of action.

A

I never said it would "bounce off". I assume it would kill a hundred or so aboard the carrier and do several million dollars of damage.

But that doesn't mean that single missile strike would come close to putting the carrier out of action.

You said
Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead, one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.

LOL so a 33407 pound missile at launch with a 1322 pound warhead would have no chance of sinking a carrier if hitting at thee water line.

Kid the kinetic energy alone without a warhead would do severe damage and might sink the ship.

You better stick to science fiction

 

[Meathead]

I never said it would "bounce off". I assume it would kill a hundred or so aboard the carrier and do several million dollars of damage.

But that doesn't mean that single missile strike would come close to putting the carrier out of action.

A

I never said it would "bounce off". I assume it would kill a hundred or so aboard the carrier and do several million dollars of damage.

But that doesn't mean that single missile strike would come close to putting the carrier out of action.

You said
Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead, one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.

LOL so a 33407 pound missile at launch with a 1322 pound warhead would have no chance of sinking a carrier if hitting at thee water line.

Kid the kinetic energy alone without a warhead would do severe damage and might sink the ship.

You better stick to science fiction

Do you doubt that every, and I mean every carrier has enough power to flatten Shang-Hi or Bei-Jing?

 

[Dick Foster]

Mutual Assured Destruction makes an all-out war highly unlikely. Aircraft Carriers are designed for limited and proxy wars.

Nah, the chinks do not value life the way we do

Mutual Assured Destruction makes an all-out war highly unlikely. Aircraft Carriers are designed for limited and proxy wars.

Nah, the chinks do not value life the way we do

They all care when you start killing off mamasan, papasan and babysan. It's when you blow up bamboo bridges and shit they don't care about is when you've got your head up your ass like we did in Vietnam. What difference does it make to someone who craps in the backyard and wipes their ass with their heel if you blow up a water works?

 

[Dayton3]

I never said it would "bounce off". I assume it would kill a hundred or so aboard the carrier and do several million dollars of damage.

But that doesn't mean that single missile strike would come close to putting the carrier out of action.

A

I never said it would "bounce off". I assume it would kill a hundred or so aboard the carrier and do several million dollars of damage.

But that doesn't mean that single missile strike would come close to putting the carrier out of action.

You said
Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead, one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.

LOL so a 33407 pound missile at launch with a 1322 pound warhead would have no chance of sinking a carrier if hitting at thee water line.
\

Why would any incoming missile hit near the waterline? IIRC that is about the last place an enemy would want an attacking missile to hit a carrier at because coming in that close to the water surface a missile would have a great chance of bouncing off the waters surface, quite possibly missing the target entirely.

 

[esalla]

I never said it would "bounce off". I assume it would kill a hundred or so aboard the carrier and do several million dollars of damage.

But that doesn't mean that single missile strike would come close to putting the carrier out of action.

A

I never said it would "bounce off". I assume it would kill a hundred or so aboard the carrier and do several million dollars of damage.

But that doesn't mean that single missile strike would come close to putting the carrier out of action.

You said
Unless it is carrying a nuclear warhead, one DF-21 would be little bother to a supercarrier.

LOL so a 33407 pound missile at launch with a 1322 pound warhead would have no chance of sinking a carrier if hitting at thee water line.
\

Why would any incoming missile hit near the waterline? IIRC that is about the last place an enemy would want an attacking missile to hit a carrier at because coming in that close to the water surface a missile would have a great chance of bouncing off the waters surface, quite possibly missing the target entirely.

LOL, actually it comes in under radar doofus. Sea skimming is a technique many anti-ship missiles and some fighter or strike aircraft use to avoid radar, infrared detection, and to lower probability of being shot down during their approach to the target. Try graduating kindergarten before posting again

P-270 Moskit/SS-N-22 Sunburn – Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance

missiledefenseadvocacy.org

USS Gabrielle Giffords fires ‘sea-skimming’ Naval Strike Missile in Indo-Pacific for first time

The Navy Strike Missile launch was part of exercise Pacific Griffin near Guam with the Singaporean navy. The weapon “can find and destroy enemy ships at distances up to 100 nautical miles away,” according to the Navy.

www.stripes.com

Bye the way kid, water also comes in at the waterline so if you want a ship to take on water fast, that is where you hit it

Look kid perhaps you ought to take up pot smoking

 

[esalla]

Mutual Assured Destruction makes an all-out war highly unlikely. Aircraft Carriers are designed for limited and proxy wars.

Nah, the chinks do not value life the way we do

Mutual Assured Destruction makes an all-out war highly unlikely. Aircraft Carriers are designed for limited and proxy wars.

Nah, the chinks do not value life the way we do

They all care when you start killing off mamasan, papasan and babysan. It's when you blow up bamboo bridges and shit they don't care about is when you've got your head up your ass like we did in Vietnam. What difference does it make to someone who craps in the backyard and wipes their ass with their heel if you blow up a water works?

Very eloquent. Now what language was that written in again?

 

[AZrailwhale]

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)

Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.

taskandpurpose.com

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

Incorrect. This is not the 1940s where an AC has to be mere miles from a target. It is the only way to project power in areas where no land-based aircraft are possible, and carriers do not stand alone. Instead they are escorted by ships and in fact their own aircraft which are specialized at intercepting threats. Additionally, the act of assaulting an AC is an act of war, a tripwire in effect, which no country has the balls to do, perhaps not even in a Biden presidency.

Aircraft carriers, like submarines are purely offensive. It is the primary reason they are the most powerful weapon in the world besides nuclear, biological or chemical all of which carriers could theoretically deliver.

All those ships would be sunk in an hour after launching an attack

And China would be a radioactive wasteland in the same timeframe.

So would your trailer genius.

Wrong, China doesn't have the capacity to win a nuclear war with the USA. But that's the reason China will never attack a US carrier or other warship.

If a carrier is used to defend Taiwan the carrier will be sunk. As for China not having nukes, you are really a very uneducated fool, as china has land sea and air nukes

PS bye the way, the usa does not have the capacity to win a nuke war either

China plans to double nuclear arsenal, Pentagon says

China plans to double its stockpile of nuclear warheads in the next decade, including those designed to be carried atop ballistic missiles that can reach the United States, the Pentagon said in a new report.

www.defensenews.com

Fact Sheet: China's Nuclear Inventory - Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Updated October 19, 2023 The People’s Republic of China (PRC) began its nuclear weapons program in the 1950s with significant help from the Soviet Union, which contributed advisors and technical equipment. When Sino-Soviet relations cooled at the end of that decade, China moved forward on its...

armscontrolcenter.org

China has a small number of nukes and a very limited delivery ability. The US has over five thousand nukes and delivery systems that range from uninterceptable ICBMs accurate within tens of meters that carry multiple independently targeted warheads, to Ohio Class submarines that can’t be tracked and can nearly hit every Chinese target while tied to their docks.

 

[esalla]

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)

Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.

taskandpurpose.com

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

Incorrect. This is not the 1940s where an AC has to be mere miles from a target. It is the only way to project power in areas where no land-based aircraft are possible, and carriers do not stand alone. Instead they are escorted by ships and in fact their own aircraft which are specialized at intercepting threats. Additionally, the act of assaulting an AC is an act of war, a tripwire in effect, which no country has the balls to do, perhaps not even in a Biden presidency.

Aircraft carriers, like submarines are purely offensive. It is the primary reason they are the most powerful weapon in the world besides nuclear, biological or chemical all of which carriers could theoretically deliver.

All those ships would be sunk in an hour after launching an attack

And China would be a radioactive wasteland in the same timeframe.

So would your trailer genius.

Wrong, China doesn't have the capacity to win a nuclear war with the USA. But that's the reason China will never attack a US carrier or other warship.

If a carrier is used to defend Taiwan the carrier will be sunk. As for China not having nukes, you are really a very uneducated fool, as china has land sea and air nukes

PS bye the way, the usa does not have the capacity to win a nuke war either

China plans to double nuclear arsenal, Pentagon says

China plans to double its stockpile of nuclear warheads in the next decade, including those designed to be carried atop ballistic missiles that can reach the United States, the Pentagon said in a new report.

www.defensenews.com

Fact Sheet: China's Nuclear Inventory - Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Updated October 19, 2023 The People’s Republic of China (PRC) began its nuclear weapons program in the 1950s with significant help from the Soviet Union, which contributed advisors and technical equipment. When Sino-Soviet relations cooled at the end of that decade, China moved forward on its...

armscontrolcenter.org

China has a small number of nukes and a very limited delivery ability. The US has over five thousand nukes and delivery systems that range from uninterceptable ICBMs accurate within tens of meters that carry multiple independently targeted warheads, to Ohio Class submarines that can’t be tracked and can nearly hit every Chinese target while tied to their docks.

How nukes does China have?

It is estimated that China has a stockpile of around 320 nuclear warheads. These weapons can be delivered by air, sea and land – completing a nuclear triad once China’s strategic bombers are deployed. While Beijing has long focused on maintaining a minimum deterrent, it is likely that its nuclear stockpile will increase in the next few decades. Additionally, if the United States continues to expand and strengthen its missile defense program, China may modify its nuclear posture to include a significantly larger nuclear force with the potential to strike the United States.

Air

Historically, the air-based component of the Chinese triad has been a low priority for the nation. China currently possesses a small number of air-based platforms for nuclear weapon delivery, but is expected to bring a new strategic bomber and air-launched ballistic missiles into operation. That may include the development of a new nuclear-capable subsonic strategic stealth bomber, the Xian H-20, which could enter service as early as 2025. This will be very similar to the U.S. B-2 bomber.

Sea

China has four Jin-class nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBN), with two more under construction. Each SSBN can carry up to 12 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) known as JL-2. These missiles are believed to have a range of 7,200 kilometers, which gives China the ability to target Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, India and Russia from Chinese waters. The only way for China to target the continental United States would be if the Jin-class submarines traveled deep into the Pacific Ocean, but they would most likely be noticed by U.S. Maritime Patrol Aircrafts.

Land

It is estimated that China currently has around 180 to 190 nuclear-capable land-based missiles that can deliver 220 nuclear warheads. In recent years, China has deployed three road-mobile nuclear-capable versions: the CSS-5 Mod 6, the DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missile, and the DF-31AG intercontinental ballistic missile launcher. It is believed that the DF-15, first fielded in the 1990s, is China’s only nuclear-capable land-based short-range ballistic missile.

Which one do you not care if it hits your trailer

 

[22lcidw]

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished | The American Conservative

The first step is acknowledging that in a standoff, it could lose, and badly.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Why A New Study Warns That Aircraft Carriers May Be Obsolete (Thanks To Russia And China)

Inexpensive Russian and Chinese weapons, such as cyberwar and antiship missiles, threaten the West’s reliance on expensive arms such as aircraft carriers.

taskandpurpose.com

However is America still wants to invade third World nations like Vietnam and Afghanistan or Somalia a carrier could still be useful. However if the USA attacked China or Russia with a carrier the ship would be sunk in under an hour by land based anti ship missiles that number in the thousands

Incorrect. This is not the 1940s where an AC has to be mere miles from a target. It is the only way to project power in areas where no land-based aircraft are possible, and carriers do not stand alone. Instead they are escorted by ships and in fact their own aircraft which are specialized at intercepting threats. Additionally, the act of assaulting an AC is an act of war, a tripwire in effect, which no country has the balls to do, perhaps not even in a Biden presidency.

Aircraft carriers, like submarines are purely offensive. It is the primary reason they are the most powerful weapon in the world besides nuclear, biological or chemical all of which carriers could theoretically deliver.

All those ships would be sunk in an hour after launching an attack

But the attack would be launched, right?

As I said, they are offensive weapons.

You'll get it soon, maybe.

Exactly if a carrier is used on a hypersonic missile equipped nation the carrier will be sunk. That said the carrier has no value in this situation

No, certainly not if the AC was alerted to attack, which it would invariable be. The carrier could launch nuclear-armed piloted aircraft from a point far closer than any ICBM and at equidistant from any incoming missile. If you understand anything, there is still a reason that trained individuals can react far better than a missile or drone.

Regardless, I am tiring of this.

Attack aircraft do not shoot down hypersonic missiles. 1.7 miles per second

It is, or was, called MAD my friend. Google it. Besides, attack aircraft are not designed or intended for that. That is why they are termed "attack". The AC itself is not a defensive weapon, but once again, and I tire of repeating it, it is both a tactical and strategic weapom.

At the time with the Soviet Union running parallel with MAD was "Detente" I believe. The sabre rattling was reduced a bit. With China this does not exist at the moment officially. They are ramping up their military and they have the resources to do it. If they released the Coronavirus they have the tenacity to get what they want.